ML20239A212

Transcript of 980826 Public Meeting on Draft Rulemaking for 10CFR41 in Casper,Wy.Pp 1-52.W/Certificate

ML20239A212
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/26/1998
From:	NRC
To:
References
REF-WM-5 NUDOCS 9809080319
Download: ML20239A212 (54)

Text

ar s mss py%gggggggggggggggggi;ggg ashuan UNgrsDSTATESiOE WERIDAk sG

/ t Agtph)sesmiavpsep$:ma8aw;w"%a

'Ed d

g*- l s

a_ _

i .

9 4 pee Y+,eg$;a&uage%y%q u pyng B8 nwap AN

[ p, p Qgg f l+ yf gph gQ g y $ ggg y g e

g w g g g g g ya riMg$o$g$e$w$egiy %g g $g

^

.: Asp ppen 9009000319 900826 PDR _ W. N .4Mb ir .h D M WOM* < O W ,S M t #

WASTE

( WM-S paa w'WM W 'l&& #}M gggspggggggrg Uh9Wh['yfPy @

k9L#4sM0NhygbaQ ggg

V qqqny a l%:?%

m i smSipV4n(pmm%mmyfyp%Wd%g%@s%

MgriaWQQQ4M? ,

i d e hdh$s M d M M kd M #90 %y d b @ MgM MbdW MWLWhaqu$4%$9

.e.

' . C Af,o -i_

a ,,, 'm. k -

)

7 v y ,

4 ,J PT, 1.

n , UNITED.' STATES OF AMERICA y

a, b, y L m s (.P, y l

. NUCLEARiREGULATORY- COMMISSION 1 l

< _: m' L V <n

.l4 t;w; .n a

~

$-.;j_,,

f '

pry n; .

g n'-k - h }. ,

-@ ,.. , , ~ ,

, J. , > l,

,., 7s r;u

-k m, '

f,l a .. , s O ' :(.N Q "# 3.t$

i *

^f s ,, ' '+ 4 s '

.?.

,-g 3 't.; .a L y ., i' '

[,s. f[l*I QTitlen ' ' , iPUBLIC'MEETIN'Gi . DRAFT ROLEMA'

~

m ,

s e

KING'FOR

. ' , ' . ' .,N ' ,a).' , , ,.

pg, 7:

t  ;. 10;CFR PARTJ41L r , s

• w2, n

, m

. c .

I 3a ,

d, i!S jS 3

gg.

ma s

};

'<b <

J b .u,..,.g 9

' V

.s = , .

9 Cniiper,5 Wyoming: '

% %m(

l,;)), ..,p[d

< +

- a ,,f RIhcationi?

?lA 2 4. -

t w

5

,JyV

+

1). , y

1 3

y

, : Lt , ,i ~ ;w;a

.- a i:

• r l , w '. 9 M . i.

,A. . ,

-  ?

[ f l" .

\ ' , ,

_yi >; r,)

\.

IL l' N w; . ,,.

s 'm.. - ..

--*- a d .l ' i'.,; ,':-) ? t Y V>A ', ' , , ,

q ';' '

f.' i s

~' O i : '

tf -

.s - - a, -

. ,~ ,

. v,- >

n. .

a, a

x~ >

Q,'  ; f'lr c,

's35, 5' '

e n .,

.. s, 4 ml,p , : : o:

e

, m . . . . .s ,, ! .' .. /- 'c . 1 E

, gi

(* 2, f,

.m .

, ,l~y %e VDate:{ x% yw Wedn'esday, August 26,11998l .

[. I h ':

.p, i'!b ' %) t _' l j ' ;;. g. y . I IN. '

', s * , : Q,l: .: Q ),': ; A ' j' ' I orf;4. _ , 4 ; ., y JW . W

,o- ' qm; e.., s<

- ~

i

> ,,[' , cQ. .

2t l: y_- '

u;_ f; t .a*rw

)Q_Q s , n s '

f; .... l/.! LC"

~

~; - m%y* :n ' ,

' c ,

y ,

a ' ~ '

iW , <a p ;;;D'. >

(I.  ; ' ' .O 3M v5 < 3 %,4 t ,4 M-

<z u ,

+-

4 t SSI L 1 F ,- J 4 3. )

g

>  ; p ,

, w ,-' '

p -Q,'.,

' . ? O *' .J,l ' * @i ? y T' *

.y 5 3 , Nf' *

/ .7! !

h'h i

s l'h

.v 1'

j' 'q , ' '*'

7 N, h'w.,' 7 ,,

t h ,,

^

+ f I ""

) ,' ,

_.. ..j,

[ ' s Nl.3;Pages:P , m j"1452 f

• y .. 1<

u W:

• c jy

- , t . it e >

7  :

1. w w ... ;V

+ o .

..v  %, > + >-

a m ...,"+

s

%,. +,

s. 3 t # "'O ' .t . '. 4,

%g

's M.i4 i

<.Jg '

• e s ,

",.. s ,

w(Q

'h A,g 2 g> s &

, ',f;y'T' c

.f,, lp'

' y..

f; f .; ,

r1,;. ,

+

s ,, t 4 A4

• , . i

, , s 4 - 9,23 w1 r 4 ,, - {l l h f j'd ' Y ,, L

&i t %? yr;]. ~

• 1

}l

f' ,

p.i a > ,r, . o .

^f w

wn;w m (-

g_j/q Q ;

na .a -

& " ~ ., h. ( d i

'>.,s.n 9;e-.

x \1.

l. pE .

..p 4" 4 :. my a

,u 4_ i

+ M.sw , , w wb *

• w- . .

u v.. m . , -

. , .g D? , ,.

p '.1

> Q< . ,_l:

f p r

13 - 'b

,- s 1 QQ b,; s WYY k , '

b#

4:1NN RILEY& ASSOCIATES,'LTD.-

12501 St., N.W.,Suke 300 =

MFjj t l d

%g , g

Washington, D.C.20005

' h ~pi]

p ,;  ; y '  !

u

' - (202) 8424034 =

l s , . w. , , - ,

4

'k b'I y f y .c 1.; 5]' - ,j., c .t i > n n ,y ,

.se i ,

< , . , -)  !

p y,

. d W,q ',

w

, 9809080319 980826 l

%. g. y~3c .f .

, PDR WASTE .

p ~; WK- 5 P DR r

!q'h%j ' k; ef Q 'e m' '

.I!.

. ",Y (:t , ,

f

{7" l u. , t,

.x  :

% '{*)} '.w Y-c.y

,Nj s, ,

2 y, ' ' ,:'w:c S. r ,r ,

J ,.

j,t'sW :; ' _ . 7

(;/.,6

t m.

y_ ':f<. >4' i,

~

s . , , <. ,

,+'

. 1 1- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA q 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION V 3 4 ***

5 PUBLIC MEETING:

6 DRAFT RULEMAKING FOR 10 CFR PART 41 7

8 Wyoming 011 &_ Gas Conservation Commission 9 Basco Building 10 777 West 1st Street 11 Casper, Wyoming 12- Wednesday, August 26, 1998 13 14 The public meeting commenced, pursuant to notice, 15 at 9:00-a.m.

16 17

.18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4

I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

, Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034

. 2 1 MR. HOLONICH: Good morning. Let's get started 2 this morning. For those of you who know me, my name is Joe 3- Holonich. I'm the chief of NRC's Uranium Recovery Branch.

4 We are here this morning because the NRC is looking at hits 5- regulatory framework for uranium recovery facilities. We 6 wanted to have a series of public meetings to get early I 7 . input on what we should consider as we do this analysis.

8 This is the third meeting out of four that we are 9 having this week. We've had meetings in Austin, Texas, 10 Albuqurque, and we are here in Casper and tomorrow in 11 Denver.

12 Although we have a short presentation this 13 morning, the real purpose of the meeting is to get input 14 from the industry, the public, other stakeholder in the 15 process and have them identify and discuss with us things 16 'that they think we should consider as we do the regulatory 17 review. What'I would like to do is produce the folks with 18 me. On my right is Maria Schwartz from our office of the 19 General Counsel.

20 Pat Mackin, who is providing us technical support

-21 through a~ contract. He's with the Center for Nuclear Waste 22 Regulatory Analyses.

23 And Mike Fliegel, who is our project manager for 24 this activity. And Anne Garcia -- who is somewhere out 25 there in the back. There she is -- who is our assistant ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 e _ _ _- -- - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - -

l l

. 3 1 thic morning.

2 f- Essentially the we have been running the meetings l

3 is to give a short presentation and background on N R C and 4 the commission and how it regulated and then really open up 5 the floor to speakers. Right now we've got seven speakers 6 signed up but as the meeting progresses, if folks want to l 7 speak, we found there has been plenty of time for speakers 8 to come up and do additional speaking. So we are not 9 limited to who is signed up on the list but we will go 10 through the list and open the floor to anybody else who 11 would like to make a presentation.

12 We've been a little -- disappointed with the other 13 meetings we were hoping to get a lot more input from the 14 stakeholder and from the public and an early indication of 15 what's going on and what people think we ought to consider 16 and we really haven't had that much input. There have been 17 three or four speakers, about 20 or 30 people attending the 18 meeting. We are hoping we get a little more input and I 19 feedback from folks ad what we should consider as we do our 20 regulatory analyses. The meetings have been scheduled to go 21 to 2 or 3 o' clock. We have usually been ending somewhere 22 around 10:30. And so we are ready to go to 3 o' clock but we 23 can break it off as early as people decide they are done 24 speak. 1 i

25 Who I would like to turning this over to Myron l

l 7- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

\- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

4

. l

. 1 Flieg31, who will give b2ckground cnd information on the  !

I 2

NRC, and for folks who are in our process this is probably 3 redundant. But for members of the public and other 4 stakeholder we wanted to give a little bit of background 5 how we work and what your philosophies are and how far we 6 approach this.

7 I'm sorry, you can tell them. *** Follow his 8 outline which is enclosed ***.

9 MR. FLIEGEL: Before we get to the actual subject 10 of this meeting, I'm going to give a little bit back 11 background on the NRC and on our regulatory practice. NRC 12 is an independent regulatory agency. It was established in 13 1974 through the energy reorganization act. Prior to that 14 time, the role that NRC's played was within the Atomic 15- Energy Commission. We now have approximately 2500 staff.

16 We are responsible for licensing of civilian use of 17 radioactive material, and that's reactors, which is what 18 most people when you talk about Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission, that's what most people know us from. Special 20 nuclear and byproduct material, transportation and

-21 radioactive waste disposal.

22 The NRC organization is mandated by legislation to 23 have three offices. At least three offices. And that's the l

24 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear j 25 Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Office of Research.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

5

, 1 .Tho.Urcnium Rscovery Brench, of which Joe is the r

2 Chief, and this regulatory review is casing out of, that 3 branch is within the Division of Waste Management, which is 4 m division in the Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards 5 Office.

]

6 Those we have copies of the slides if you want to 7 foal with me.

8 NRC and its licensees share a common responsibility to 9 protect public health and safety. Federal regulation and 10 the NRC program are important elements in the protection of 11 the public. It has been NRC's philosophy that our licensees 12 have the primary responsibility for the safe use of nuclear 13 . material.

14 Our regulatory role envelopes the development of 15 regulations and guidance, and that's basically what this 16 meeting is here to discuss, or to hear comments upon.

'17 In addition, we review applications for proposed 18 actions to determine if the those actions meet our 19 regulations.

20 And in doing that, the burden of proof is on the 21 licensee or applicant to show that what they propose does 22 meet regulations.

23 Implementing that framework, we do not select 24 designs or sites or participate with licensees in selecting 25 designs and sites. That's something that the press i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

/ 1025. Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

6 1 constantly gato wrong. We are always seeing news articles 2 about an NRC site or an NRC proposal, which it is really a 3 licensee's. We really only have as an independent 4 regulatory agency, only have a couple of options open to us.

5 We can grant the application, we can grant the application 6 with some revisions that are agreed to by the licensee or 7 applicant, or we can deny the application. We can't tell 8 our licensee so do something different because we would like 9 them to do -- to move the site someplace else or to design 10 something different.

11 Now, more to the focus of this meeting. We are 12 seeking public input. We are doing a review, we are 13 conducting an evaluation of our regulatory framework of the 14 uranium thorium program. Based based upon our experience

() 15 16 using the current regulations, we've come to the conclusion that we ought to undertake a review of the existing 17 regulations.

18 That's to implement a more consistent and 19 effective uranium recovery program.

20- In addition, we received the White Paper from the 21 national mining association. That White Paper raised four 22 issues that MNA wanted the commission to look at again.

23 Those are concurrent jurisdiction, in situ leach, alternate 24 feed and disposal of alternate -- of material other than l 25 ' non-11e. (2) byproduct. I'll get to those in a minute.

l f sg ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.  ;

Q- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L-___-_----_-_.-------

7 1

Tha purpoco of this m2ating is to obtain early 2 input in the process, and that's really what we want. We

\- 3 want to hear what the industry, states, public, any other 4 stakeholder are thinking, and how they would like to see 5 NRC proceed in our review of our regulatory program.

6 We also want to obtain comments from others on the 7 National Mining Association's White Paper. There were four 8 issues there. We think the national mining association laid 9 out its concerns with those issues pretty -- in a very 10 excellent manner. We would like to see -- hear from others 11 on those issues.

12 We want to consider the potential for future 13 actions by NRC, if any.

14 All comments we receive will be considered. The meeting is

/~N 15 being transcribed. We will have all the words when we get 16 back to Washington, D.C.. We will consider all comments we 17 receive.

18 Any of the actions we tail or proposed to us must 19 be consistent with our regulatory philosophy.

20 NRC is responsible for regulating the production 21 of source material from uranium and thorium mills, including 22 in site leach facilities. We must ensure inactive uranium 23 mills on the site are reclaimed. We confirm acceptable 24 implementation for our inspection program. We must also 25 ensure the reclaimed uranium mills sites are taken over by

{

ANN RILEY E ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters k 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

, Washington, D.C. 20036 l

(202) 842-0034

8 1 tho leng-tcrm cuctodian, which in most cases will be the 73 2 Department of Energy, unless a state proposes so do that.

3 As I said before, the National Mining Association l 4 issued a White Paper which they requested NRC to perform a 5 strategic assessment of key NRC positions with respect to 6 the uranium recovery program.

7 The White Paper said that NRC need to reassess its 8 jurisdiction of non-agreement states over non-radiological 9 components of 11e. (2) byproduct material. That was a 10 position I think in 1980, and we continue to conclude that 11 we have jurisdiction. The White Paper has stated that it 12 believes we do not.

13 NRC jurisdiction over -- I'm sorry, we believe 14 that the states have concurring jurisdiction and the White 15 Paper says that the states do not.

16 There's a concern -- the position of the White 17 Paper is that all regulation of in situ mills begins in the 18 facility itself rather than in the aquifer where the 19 leaching first begins.

20 The industry has stated NRC guidelines, which was 21 published in the Federal Register in 1995, that presents 22 guidance for licensees who wish to dispose of radioactive 23 material that is not byproduct material, that that guidance 24 is too restrictive. And that NRC's policy on allowing 25 material to be processed in mills, material other than an ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l %-(\

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. 9

• i 1 cctuni ora n0cds to be revisited.

2 Again, their recommendations, that non-agreement

\# 3 states should not have jurisdiction over non-radiological 4 components of 11e. (2) byproduct.

5 That NRC should not regulate the wellfields leach 6 facilities. i 7 That the guidance for disposal of non-11e. (2) 8 disposal material should be less restrictive.

9 That NRC should allow or explore allowing other ,

10 radioactive materials which the guidance precluded, such as 11 radioactive materials not regulated under the Atomic Energy 12 Act.

13 Special nuclear material and 11e. (1) material be 14 allowed mills.

15 And then there were concerns of the guidance on 16 alternate feed material and, particularly, the industry is 17 concerned about the NRC focusing on economic aspects when we 18 look at that.

19 Now, based on the information that we gain here 20 and internal discussions, NRC staff will determine what 21 action to pursue in terms of our regulatory program. Among 22 the options that we are going to consider are revising some 23 regulatory guidance, actually revising regulations, that is 24 coming out with a draft rule making and going on to final

{

25 rule making, or if we determine there really isn't very much ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

[' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

, 10 1 intercot, cnd thoro'o not a need to, there may be no major 2 action.

3 And we also have to decide how best to respond to 4 the issues raised in the MNA White Paper.

5 That's basically the presentation of the 6 background. For the remainder'of the meeting we are 7 basically here to listen to the views of the interested 8 public, the stakeholder, any other parties.

9 The meeting, as I said, is being transcribed. All 10 speakers, when you begin, please state and spell your name, 11 and provide the name of any organization with whom you are 12 associated.

13 The meeting is not intended as a question and 14 answer session with NRC.

15 It's also focused only the regulatory program of NRC, which

-16 it is really not the forum for specific site issues that you 17 wish to raise,-this is no the forum for that.

18 Keep to the time limits, but although I don't 19 think we are going to have a problem with time.

20 And we ask the audience to refrain from asking 21 questions to the speakers. With that, we are ready.

22- MR. HOLONICH: As Mike said, when we prepared 23 these we weren't sure what the participation would be. If 24 we had a large amount of people who wanted to speak, we were 25 going to have to put a-time limit on it. However, because ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. 11 1 we don't;have more than seven speakers, we are going to let 2- people feel free to do the presentation they would like 3 without any time limit constraint.

4 When you speak, if you would come up and sit at .

5 the table. There is a microphone here. There are mike 6 phones into the stenographer that will help him get all the 7 words you say. Copies of the transcripts are available on 8 the sign'should sheet we would ask you to check if you would 9 _like to get copies. If you haven't signed up at the.end of 10 the meeting, there's a sign up sheet next-to the candy dish, 11 please sign up if you would like copies of the transcript.

12 What I would like to do is start the presentation, and the 13 first. person is Marian Loomis from the Wyoming Mining 14 Association.

15 While Marian is handing this out, I would like to

(

16 note besides the presentation that Mike gave, we brought i

17 along some copies of the National Mining Association White 18' Paper as well as side that the MNA used to brief the 19 commission. And copies are available for anyone who wants 20 some.

21 MR. LOOMIS: ** Statement Fed x'd*** Thank you.

22 It's a pleasure to be here today. Welcome to Wyoming. I 23 hope your stay is enjoyable.

24 My name is Marian Loomis. That's spelled 25 M-a-r-i-a-n L-o-o-m-i-s. I am the Executive Director of the

)

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 b34

l

, 12 1 Wyoming Mining Association.

(g 2 The Wyoming Mining Association represents 30 V 3 companies in Wyoming. We lead the nation in production of 4 bentonite, coal, soda ash produced from natural rock trona, 5 and uranium.

6 WMA represents 11 uranium companies with 7 activities in the State of Wyoming, as well as one uranium 8 company in western Nebraska. More specifically, this

9 includes four out of the five operating in situ leach mines 10 in the United States, as well as seven Title II mills sites 11 in various stages of decommissioning and reclamation. While 12 WMA supports any efforts to improve the regulatory framework 13 used to-regulate uranium extraction facilities and mills, it 14 .i;s not apparent that a costly and time consuming rule making

( ) 15 initiative is required to resolve the issues surrounding.

16 NRC's regulation of this industry.

17 Uranium extraction industry and associated mill 18 decommissioning activities cannot be classed as a growth 19 industry. In 1980, 25 operations employed 4,649 workers in 20 Wyoming. These mines produced over 12 million pounds of U 21 308 in 1980. Currently there are 207 workers at the 3 22 Wyoming ISL operations and 137 workers reclaiming 23 decommissioned mill sites, reclaiming the mines, or working

.24 to maintain mill sites. One mill site is nearing NRC 25 approval for an operating license. In light of the apparent ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

l. _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _

1 13 1 world over supply of urenium, the current uranium market, 3 2 recent USEC initiatives, and high grade deposits outside the I' 3 United States, it is unlikely that the industrial ever 4 rebound to levels seen in the 1980s.

5 WMA overwhelming supports the NMA White Paper 6 recommendations for a coordinated approach to regulating the 7 uranium recovery industry. We believe if the NRC ' implements 8 the recommendations in the White Paper, it will allow the 9 NRC to better allocate staff resources to those activities 10 Congress intended NRC to regulate. It will also reduce 11 duplicative regulatory over it and should result in more 12 timely finally decommissioning of Title II sites.

13 WMA beliefs that the NRC should immediately 14 relinquish jurisdiction over ISL wellfields for the reasons 15 identified in the NMA White Paper. We do not believe that a 16 timely and costly rule making process is necessary to make 17 this change, as the current regulations do not specifically 1 1

18 address ISL wellfields. ISL those wellfields will remain 19 regulated by EPA UIC regulations specific to uranium 20 recovery those facilities will also continue to be subject I 21 to the very strenuous and detailed State of Wyoming 22 regulations pertaining to ISL mining.

23 While on one hand WMA strongly supports NRC 24 relinquishing jurisdiction over ISL weld fields, we also l

25: field very strong will that NRC must exercise total l

j

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l

j Washington, D.C. 20036  !

(202) 842-0034

. 14 1 regulatory jurisdiction over non-agreement states for the 2 non-radiological aspects of 11e. (2) byproduct material. We 3 believe Congress intended total federal preemption in this 4 area. Experience to date in Myoming shows that the lack of 5 preempts has resulted in numerous delays, excessive 6 duplicative regulatory agency oversight and costs, and no 7 better benefit to health and safety issues. In fact, 8 non-agreement state jurisdiction over the non-radiological 9 component of 11e.(2) byproduct material'has impeded the 10 proper disposal of 11e. (2) material in clear contradiction 11 of the mandate for the non-proliferation of small wasta 12 sites incorporated in criterion 2 of 10 C.F.R. 40 Appendix 13 A. Nor exam, the State of Wyoming has established 14 limitations on the amounts of oversight generated byproduct

, 15 material that can be disposed in an existing tailings 16 impoundment without meeting state imposed requirements.

17 Amounts above the quantity limitation must be meet

18. additional state requirements.

19 WMA recommends that NRC simplify and make more 20 practical, the disposal of non-11e. (2) byproduct material in ,

1 21 tailings piles. The Mills Tailings Act does not preclude 22 the dispose $of such material. Given the relative large 23 size and remote location of most mill tailings sites, the 24 addition of relatively small quantities of such material 25 poses no significant environmental issues and serves to l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '

( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

I

, 15 1 minimize the proliferation of disposal sites.

2 O 3 Additionally, WMA supports efforts to facilitate the processing of alternate feed material at uranium mills.

4 Similar to the issues surrounding the disposal of 5- non-11e. (2 ) byproduct material, the processing of alternate 6

feed for source material content will result in alternative 7 disposal' options for such term, while producing additional 8 source material.

9 To reiterate earlier statements, WMA does not 10 believe costly and time consuming rule making is necessary 11 to accomplish the above changes. However, if the situation 12 arises that rule making is unavoidable to accomplish some, 13 or all, of the needed changes, WMA encourages that any rule 14 making initiative provide the following.

15 1. Reflect the recommendations included in the NMA 16 White Paper.

17 2. Provide for such input from industry in the 18 development of any regulations.

19 3. Eliminate dual jurisdiction with other state and 20 federal regulations and agencies.

21 4. Provide provisions for performance based 22 licensing.

l 23 5. Ensure any changes to decommissioning standards 24 for Title II sites does not adversely affect approved 25 decommissioning plans (include anti-backfit provisions).

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. 16 1 6. Allow the ground water standard applicable to be i

2 applied to Title II sites.

O 3 7. Adopt risk based environmental standards which 4 optimize the c::stical balance bgetween costs and benefits, l 5 and provide flexibilf.ty reflective of site specific 6 geographic and environmental conditions.

7 I appreciate the opportunity to comment before you 8 today. Thank you.

9 THE COURT: Second speaker is Oscar Paulson from 10 Kennecut.

11 MR. PAULSON: Good morning. My name is Oscar 12 Paulson, 0-s-c-a-r P-a-u-1-s-o-n.

13 And I work for Kennecut Uranium Company.

14 Kennecut Uranium Company supports the National 15 Mining Association's White Paper and specifically believes 16 that:

17 1. The NRC should exert total federal preemption over 18 11e. (2) byproduct material. Thus, 11e.(2) byproduct, both 19 the radiological and non-radiological components, should 20 fall solely under NRC jurisdiction.

21 2. The NRC should relinquish jurisdiction over ISL 22 wellfields, leaving their regulation to the parties which 23 also regulate them now; namely, the states and the EPA.

24 Kennecut uranium also believes that the NRC should 25 allow the use of passive restoration, i.e., natural ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

17 1 flushing, ca a menna of ground water cleanup at-Title II l  :

2 sites, as.is currently allowed by DOE at their Title I l

3 sites.

4 Kennecut Uranium believes that no changes should I 5 be made to the 515 uranium cleanup standards that are 6 currently in use. And also believes that any final rules '

, 7 for soil cleanup should use the application -- should use 8 the existing 515 uranium standard for soil cleanup at 9 uranium mills as a means of establishing dose limits for the 10 cleanup of ** radio knew CLEE eyes other than uranium, i.e.

11 uranium and thorium.

12 Thank you.

i 1

! 13 MR. HOLONICH: Next speak, Mark Wittrup.-

14 MR. WITTRUP: ** Statement Fed X'd*** My name is 15 Itark Wittrup, W-i- t- t-r-u-p . I'm Director of Environmental l :L6. Safety for Power Resources, an in situ leach ISL uranium t

17: producer which in 1997 produced 1.5 million pounds of U3 08 18 from the-Highland Uranium Project, Converse County, Wyoming.

19 Relative to other forms of uranium mining, ISL production is i

20 relatively benign with small risk to the health of our 21 workers and the public, and minor environmental impacts i 22 compared to more conventional types of mining. Power 23 Resources is proud of its record in both environment and l- 24 safety even as we strive for continual improvement in these 25 ' areas.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

i

18 1 Powar Rssourcss cypreciates the NRC's efforts in L

l 2 defaulting a more consistent and effective regulatory 3 process for uranium recovery facilities. And welcomes the 4 opportunity to participate in this process. As I proceed, 5 my comments will be somewhat general, as there is no i

6 document or NRC position paper to comment on. It would have 7 been preferred to have a briefing document or position paper 8 prior to these scoping sessions which, at a minimum, .

9 outlined what the NRC hoped to achieve from a rule making,

! 10 and some preliminary response to the NMA White Paper, so 11 that my comments here today could have been more focused and 12 constructive.

13 There are several general areas Power Resources 14 believes Nuclear Regulatory Commission should investigate

"'N 15 during this effort.

(d 16 During the course of my presentation, I will briefly discuss these areas and rather than belabor the 17 regulatory challenges we see in each area, I will deal with 18 those items that we feel would contribute to the development 19 of a more consistent and effective regulations, without 20 compromising worker, public, and environmental safety. The 21 areas I will discuss in more detail are:

22 1. The need for a new rule making.

23 2. Regulation commensurate with risk.

24 3. Regulatory process.

25 4. NMA White Paper, and its four main points. It l

l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, buite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

19 i 1 \

chould ba ctresocd that tho White Paper was requested by the l

2 NRC's commissioners, and produced under the auspices of the 3 NMA with member supports.

j 4 5. Performance based licensing.

5 6. Progressive licensing.

6 7. OSEA versus M Shaw, and.

7 8. Decommissioning.

8 New rule making.

9 While there is clearly some discontent in the 10 regulated community, witness the White Paper, Power 11 Resources does not believe that a new set of regulations 12 will be the most effective route to achieve the stated 13 objectives. With low uranium prices, uranium producers are 14 feeling the financial pinch, and the cost and expense of 15 being fully involved in a major rule making, and we would 16 want to be, would be substantial. And we are not the only 17 ones to be feeling the financial pinch. NRC is continually i 18 expressing to industry the lack of resources; surely a full 19 rule making initiative would add unnecessary financial and 20 resource pressures to the NRC as well. Therefore, less 21 resource intensive alternatives should be pursued, rather  !

l 22 than more resource intensive ones.

23 From our perspective. the current regulatory 24 regime is workable. That, however, does not mean that it 25 cannot or does not need to be improved, as there have been a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters {

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  ;

Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 f

i

20 1 lots of changaa in tha industry since they were first 2 promulgated 20 years ago. As such, Power Resources

3 recommends that if the current regulations are to be 4 amended, then any amendments must reflect the changes 5 discussed in this presentation and the White Paper.

6 Regulation and risk.

! 7 Most uranium recovery systems deal with 8 low-specific activity materials, and while there is some 9 concentration of radionuclides occurring, the concentrated d 10 or end products are not fissionable material. As NRC's 11- process proceeds, Power Resources requests that the NRC 12 recognize the relative Lois being of most uranium recovery 13 facilities, and ISL in particular, in defaulting 14 regulations. This focus on the relatively Lois being of ISL l 15 sites was a main theme in our comments to the NRC on the ISL 16 standard review plan because ISL sites are not reactors or i

i 17 enrichment facilities, nor do they have extensive tailing 18 facilities, and the directs risk from the operations are 19 low.

20 The regulatory process.

21 Power Resources is concerned that the NRC is being l 22 somewhat disingenuous in the scoping process, as it is our 23 understanding that NRC already has prepared an internal 24 draft for a new part 41. Yet, this scoping session scoping 25 session gives the impression that nothing has been done, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034  !

l i

. 21 1 that tha concidaration of a new rule making is an entirely 2 new initiative. Our concern is that it is harder to

3. incorporate ideas and suggestions arising from this process

~

4 into a document which already exists and may already have an 5 NRC staff buy-in. We saw this difficulty with the ISL 6 standard review plan.

7 To address this curb, NRC needs to ensure in the 8 event of a rule making procedure, the time and resources 9 will be there for an effective public review. i one that a 10 locals for more than one iter ration of comments, with time 11 . lines sufficient for preparing thoughtful responses. We do 12 not feel that this was the case with the standard review 1

13 plan where NRC budgetary concerns fueled the deadlines.

14 Further.

15 Further, there also needs to be a mechanism to 16 ensure that the comments received during these scoping 17 sessions will be given fair consideration and incorporated

, 18 into any draft rule making document. Perhaps the NRC should l

l 19 be putting forth an advance notice of proposed rule making.

20 The White Paper.

21' Power Resources has been an actively supporter of 22 the National Mining Association's White Paper. At this time 23 we would like to state our support for the White Paper and 24 the conclusions derived in it.

25- The four main areas are:

ANN RILEY E ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

22 I 1. Jurisdiction of non-cgrammsnt States over the 2 non-radiological aspects of 11e. (2) byproduct material. In this matter Power Resources agrees that the current staff l

3 4 policy is contrary to law and not optimally protective of 5 public health, and the NRC should pursue full federal )

6 preemption in the regulation of 11e.(2) byproduct material l 7 in non-agreement states.

t I. 8 2. Jurisdiction over ISL operations. Power Resources 9 agrees that the NRC should not be regulating the subsurface 10 portion of ISL operations, as it is duplicative of the EPA's 11 under ground injection control program which sets the 12 standards and regulations for constructing and operating 13 them, and it is considered to be extraction, and therefore, 14 outside the legal bounds of the NRC's authority. In 15 addition, ISL uranium operations in Wyoming are covered by 1 16 the covered by detailed regulations under the Wyoming 17 . Environmental Quality Act and the Wyoming Deparbment of L 18 Environmen.tal Quality Land Quality Division rules and 19 regulations.

20 3. Disposal of non-11e. (2) byproduct material. Power 21' Resources agrees that the NRC should examine its policy over 22 the dispose avenue of non-11e. (2) material in mill tailings I 23 to allow for the disposal of materials which exhibit low 24 levels of radio activity and are chemically and physically

25. similar to the materials already in the mills tailings, and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

f~ Court Reporters

\

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 -

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

23 I which do not otherwise compromise RCRA's land disposal 2 restrictions.

O 3 4. All this would also minimize the proliferation of 4 smaller dispose avenue sites.

5 5. Alternate feed policy. Power Resources agrees 6 that the NRC should modify its position and make it easier 7 to recover source material from a variety of sources, 8 including non-11e. (2) byproduct material, by processing it 9 in mills and disposing of the tails in the existing mill 10 tails facility. This would allow for the recovery or 11 recycling of a valuable resource, which would otherwise be 12 disposed of at great expense, and it would allow for the 13 safe disposal of the resultant waste material.

14 Performance based licensing.

15 Power Resources requests that any potential rule 16 making contain provisions for performance based licensing.

17 Currently, this is staff policy, and we feel it should be 18 codified in the regulations. As a company with a 19 performance based license, we understand the 20 responsibilities that accompany such a license, even as we 21' enjoy the flexibility and convenience it provides to our 22 operation. Recognizing the relative risk of uranium 23 recovery operations, such licensing reduces regulatory costs 24 for both the regulator and the regulated community while 25 providing the same level of human health and environmental ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

24 1 protection esa tho standard license.

2 Progressive licensing.

I 3 Any rule making effort should reflect the ability l

4 for an operation to progressively meet the NRC's licensing 5 requirements. For instance, ISL sites cannot possibly 6 provide al1 of the information on all of the wellfields l 7 prior to permitting; it is physically and financially i

( 8 impossible. Rather, a permit application is generally 9 approved with considerable detail on the first well field l

l 10 and the globe balance measures to protect human health and '

l 11 the environment, with subsequent wellfields being developed 1

12 in accordance with the license conditions. This method is 13 fully protective of the workers, the public, and the l 14 environment, because subsequent development does not create

() 15 16 any new exposure or release scenarios which must be reviewed, and operations must conform to the terms of the 17 license and state permits.

18 OSHA v uesus MSHA.

19 Many uranium recovery operations are regulated by 20 the mine safety and health act, MSHA, not the occupational 21' safety and health act, which covers the majority of 22 industry. Certain proposed regulations, such as NUREG 1601 j 23 on. chemical process safety, are based on OSHA. MSHA j

24 regulated facilities, such as Power Resources' Highland

25. operation, would have the burden of duplicative regulations l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reportere 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

25 1 cnd tha expsnse of being compliant with the two acts, which 2 while similar in intent are different in their execution, b 3 Any rule making should allow for regulation by OSEA or MSHA, r 4 whichever is appropriate to a facility's operation.

5 Decommissioning.

6 Any potential rule making must address the issue 7 of decommissioning standards for uranium recovery 8 operations. Decommissioning rules must allow for the use of 9 both cost / benefit analyses and risk-based assessments in 10 their implementation.

11 The Multi-agency Radiation Survey and Site 12 Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) which details decommissioning 13 protocols, while good for many nuclear facilities, is not i-14 well adapted for use in the uranium recovery arena as it

/ 15 does not adequately address the prior existence of naturally 16 occurring radionuclides or influence from outside sources.

17 Any rule making should includes the abilities to use site 18 specific and supplemental standards for the decommissioning 19 of uranium recovery facilities.

20 Power Resources supports the proposal that the 21' clean-up criteria should be limited to material which has a 22 combined total effective dose equivalent for any combination 23 of uranium and thorium in excess of background, which is 24 less than or equal to a doze resulting from concentration of 25 5pci/g in the upper 6 inches of soil, and 15 pCi/g in the 1

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

26 1 nsxt 6 inchas of uranium in equilibrium with its progeny.

2 Or, as an alternative, a demonstrable risk above background, 3 through a thorough and realistic site specific pathways 4 analysis, of 1mSv/yr (100 mrem /yr) or less to a member of 5 the public utilizing realistic land use scenarios.

6 This would allow some flexibility to the operator 7 in designing a decommissioning project, and to the NRC in 8 reviewing decommissioning operations and still adequately 9 protect members of the public.

10. To avoid the proliferation of small waste sites 11 Criterion 2 of Appendix A, 10 C.F.R. Part 40. Requires ISL 12 operations to dispose of byproduct material at existing l

13 large scale tailings facilities. Unfortunately, these sites 14 are slowly disappearing as existing sites are reclaimed and 15 new operations are not being developed because of the poor

)

16 economics of conventional uranium mining. Given the very 17 small volume of wastes generated at an ISL site relative to 1 18 a conventional site, the NRC should consider its stand on 19 small waste disposal sites with respect to ISL operations. l 20 Further, if small waste sites were allowed for ISL 21' operations, criterion 10 of 10 C.F.R. 40, Appendix A, should 22 be revise advised to allow for long term surveillance bonds

2l3 which accurately reflect the lower surveillance costs for

-24 such small, low risk facilities.

25 Discussion.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O g

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 ,

(202) 842-0034 )

i

. 27 1

Powar Resources is in favor of a more consistent 2 and effective regulation of uranium recovery industry, but l 3 such a rule making anybody fifth must be,.

4 1. Fair, flexible, and readily adaptable to site 5 specific situations.

6 2. Target at eliminating duplicative regulation even 7 if that means surrendering some turf.

8 3. Open for adequate public and industry input.

9 And,.

I 10 4. Supplied with adequate funding, agency funding, I 11 and human resources to provide the above and eliminate 12 artificial deadlines.

13 We believe that the positions we have outlined, if 14 taken in the spirit of open dialogue, will lead to a 15 constructive process, and ultimately regulations which are 16 consistent, effective, fair, and, above all, fully 17 protective of human health and the environment.

18 Power Resources looks forward to participating in I 19 any rule making or policy initiatives which arise from these l

20 scoping sessions, and we wish to be kept fully informed of 21' agency initiatives and progress in this regard.

l 22 In conclusion, any rule making initiative must:

23 1. Accurately reflect the low risk posed by uranium t

l 24 recovery facilities.

l 25 2. Allow for adequate review and comment, that is, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, i O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ,

i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

28 1- dsvalopsd with sufficisnt tima and ragources.

2 3. Reflect the positions taken in the White Paper.

3 4. Include provisions for performance based licensing 4 and progressive licensings.

5 5. Contain risk-based decommissioning standards as 6 detailed in this presentation.

7 6. Minimize industry and regulatory resources for its 8 ' implementation and administration. '

9 Thank you for your attention. $

10 MR. HOLONICH. The next speaker is from Paul 11 Goranson from Rio Algom.

12 MR. GORANSON: Thank you, again, for the 13 opportunity to speak with you and comment on your public 14 guidance on possible rule making.

15 My name is Paul Goranson, G-o-r-a-n-s-o-n. I'm 16 the Manager of Radiation Safety Regulatory Compliance and 17 Licensing for the Rio Algom Mining Corporation.

18 RMC currently operates a commercial ISL uranium 19 mine known as the Smith Ranch facility located north of 20 Glenn Rock, Wyoming. Additionally, RMC has NRC licensed 21' operations in New Mexico and Utah, they are in various 22 states of decommissioning.

23 Currently RMC's position supports the NMA White L

24 Paper as it has been presented here.

25 Of particular interest to the company are the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

29 1 issu23 of concurrcnt jurisdiction and NRC regulation of ISL 2 wellfields.

3 We believe that both issues are consistent with 14 each other. With respect to NRC regulation of ISL 5 operations, RMC believes the current level of NRC regulation 6 of operations is duplicative of the regulation by WDEQ as 7- EPA agreement state.

8 Currently with the duplicate regulation licensees

9. are placed in the middle of two separate regulatory 10 agencies. Example is when a permit change is made through 4 i

11- the DEQ requests, a simultaneous license application 12 amendment must be made to the NRC and review processes occur 13 at different times. 'And review questions, comments, are at 1

14 different levels of review.

15 This duplicate approval tracts is costly, 16 redundant and we believe does not increase the protection of 17 the human health and environment. We believe that the 18 regulations enforced by WDEQ -- strenuously, I might add --

l 19 provides the adequate protection of the environment and 20 human health. That being said at this point in time, RMC is i

21' not sure that a new rule making is necessary,

22. We feel that using the existing regulation, along 23 with.NMA's recommendation, will go along way to improving 24 efficiency and consistency. Should the NRC decide new rule j 25- making is necessary, we ask that position also detailed in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

t Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. 30 I

the NMA White Paper be considered in the development of this 2 new rule making.

3 Secondly, we ask the NRC continue to include the 4 licensees in the development of these new rules.

5 Thank you for your time.

6 MR. HOLONICH: Next speaker is Harley Shaver.

7 MR. SHAVER: Good morning. My name is Harley 8 Shaver. I'm with the firm of Shaver & Licht. I have in the 9 past represented uranium producers. Today I appear on 10 behalf of Western Nuclear of Wyoming, a Title II licensee.

11 I'm going to restrict my comments and focus 12 primarily on the issue covered in the NMA White Paper of the 13 current jurisdiction versus federal preemption and as it 14 relates to the State of Wyoming.

() 15 16 It occurs to me concurrent jurisdiction is something that occurs around my house sometimes, you know, 17 it's kind of like if dad says no, ask mom. I don't know 18 that we want a federal regulatory scheme that has that type 19 of input / output and resulting chaos that sometimes occurs.

20 Why are we here today? Well, we are here to get 21' some public input, but this effort historically started a 22 long time ago. As we know, the uranium mills and mill 23 tailing sites in the State of Wyoming were an outgrowth of 24 the Manhattan project, and they were brought on stream in 25 the '50s and were declared a matter of the utmost national ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

31 1

importance.

2 It was for the national military defense. And a 3 lot of Wyoming mining companies and the State of Wyoming 4 participated in that.

5 Come the late 1970s, there was a reversal of 6 focus. It then became important as a matter of national 7 priority to protect the public from the perceived hazards of 8 byproduct material. , if you will, now, a national 9 environmental defense effort. But, nevertheless, an 10 important national policy.

11 The passage of UMTRCA, gave the NRC jurisdiction 12 -over byproduct material from those mills, which it didn't i l

13 previously have. In an effort to achieve closure of those 14 mills, the NRC was given jurisdiction over byproduct

( 15 material where ever it was located and whatever its 16 constituents. And this would apply to byproduct material in 17 solution or deposited in or by ground water.

18 There is no regulatory vacuum. When one suggests 19 concurrent jurisdiction, it's almost like inviting someone 20 else in and saying, that they have to do something. The NRC 21' has assured non' agreement states they will not release a 22 site unless it is protective of human, health safety and the 23 environment. There is no regulatory vacuum, and I think l 24 that should be strongly declared.

25 Since one of the primary legislative purposes in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

32 1 p asing UMTRCA was to achisva site closure of Title II

\

s 2 sites, and a in a safe and timely manner as a national l

\ 3 policy. What could frustrate that?

4 With, site closure can be delayed if not entirely 5 frustrated at many Title II sites in Wyoming if we continue 6 down the path of concarrent jurisdiction. Or if the NRC l

7 will not certify a site for closure and turn over to DEO 8 solely because of a non-agreement State's objection. It 9 gives a non-agreement state essential veto power, no matter 10 whether or not the licensee has complied with the federal 11 regulatory scheme.

12 I don't think that's the intent of Congress, I 13 don't think that's the intent of the federal regulations.

14 We are faced with a situation where Wyoming, in 15 its position and its role as trustee, is on record as 16 saying, when I say trustee for the state's resources, which 17 is certainly a legitimate role for the Wyoming Department of 18 Environmental Quality, they are on record saying that NRC <

19 regulations do not protect the resource for future use.

20 They only protect human health and safety and the 21 environment. To some extent, I believe, the Wyoming of j 22 environmental quality has viewed this has a deficiency in 23 the federal regulatory scheme.

24 And although such reasoning may have some initial 25 appeal, I think it's important to analyze. Byproduct ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(--)' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

33 1 matcrial is a picks mixture. Any rsquiremtnts I'm posed by

, 2 states over non-radiological constituents would likely have 3 consequences that could or would destroy the appeal of that 4 thesis.

5 Let me give you some examples. Let's assume that 6 the NRC were to a accept the reclamation efforts of a 7 licensee, such that the ground water concentrations of 8 radiological and non-radiological hazardous constituents 9 comprising of byproduct material were such as to be

(

10 protective of the public health, safety and the environment.

11 Then the NRC would be in a position to accept the site for 12 license termination.

13 If, however, a state, such as Wyoming, could then 14 exercise jurisdiction over non-radiological constituents of 15 byproduct material, such protection is achieved by the NRC 16 could well be destroyed. For example, were Wyoming to 17 attempt to insist on reductions in ground water 18 concentrations of sulfates, licensees could be faced with 19 several unattractive choices. Could pump the ground water 20 and treat it chemically. They could use surface evaporation 21 ponds.

22 Let's look at what those would involve. The first 23 choice would require the construction of a treatment plant 24 and the long term use of power for its operation. The 25 treatment planted would, of course, have waste products, i

l l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l

[ } Court Reporters '

\d 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

---

.------_--_u

34

. I which would ba byproduct material, and, again, be subject to 2 NRC jurisdiction. It we would have created a new site that 3 needs to be licensed. This material would require disposal

4. either at the expense of further surface disturbance or at 5 the expense of transport.

6 The foregoing activities generate environmental l

7 consequences and could be expected at some level to result '

8 in accidental injuries and/or death to workers and l 9 employees. Additionally, at some point that plant itself 10 would require dismantling and additional environmental 11 reclamation work would be required.

12 All this in a situation where NRC regulations 13 presumably have been met.

14 Let's look at the alternative of evaporation 15 ponds. In certain circumstances hundreds of acres, hundreds 16 and hundreds of acres, could be necessary for construction 17 of surface evaporation ponds, which themselves would prevent 18, the acreage from being utilized from other purposes, being I 19 wet lands, grazing or whatever. Moreover the ponds 20 themselves could and would present an environmental and 21 human health dangers because now the radiological together

~22 with the non-radiological hazardous constituents would again 23 be on the surface where they would be accessible to plants,

( 24 animals, and human beings, and, again, the surface deposits l

25 created after the evaporation are now byproduct material ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

35 1 subject to NRC licensing and subject to disposal problems.

2 I submit to you that such a process and result 3 would be environmentally counterproductive and constitute an 4' incredible failure of optbaizing reclamation resources. A 5 situation where good state intentions can create bad 6' results.

7 Public health and safety would be better served 8 and protected were all possible reclamation choices to be 9 evaluated by a single federal agency using a single set of 10 standards and goals. In order to optimize a balance, a 11 balanced safe and cost effective approach, it has been 12 widely accepted that a risk-based analysis be utilized in 13 incorporating the law. The federal regulatory scheme uses 14 this approach.

() 15 16 Wyoming does not.

reconcilable.

The conflicting approaches are It should be mentioned, I think, in this 17 forum that Wyoming elected not to be an agreement state. It 18 was a conscious decision. Wyoming elected not to be an 19 agreement state and not to utilize its taxpayers' money to 20 funneled a state agency to acquire and equivalent level of 21 expertise. That would have been necessary to have become an

]

22 agreement state. sGLIEFRNLTHS punctuation sGLIEFRNLTHS and 1

23 in so doing Wyoming knew there would be federal preemption.

l 24 Governor Heschler, wrote Chairman Ahern, April 10th of 1980, 1

25 finally, we brief discuss the question of whether or not the I

l l

i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. 36 I state should promulgate mill tailings regulation also 2 designed to regulate the non-radiological hazards of uranium 3 facilities until preemption by NRC occurs in 1981. So 4 Governor Herschler'of Wyoming and the chairman of the

)

5 -AEC/NRC in April of 1980 believed UMTRCA prevented federal i l

6 regulation for non-agreement states. I see no reason that 7 there should be any change of focus to day.

8 Wyoming went one step further in 1987 and 1989.

L 9 Wyoming passed specific statutes removing any, quote, area 10 within the NRC license area from Wyoming department of 11 environmental quality jurisdiction. This was done to 12 prevent a duplication of licensing and regulatory activity.

13 And I guess being a lawyer I would be a little bit 14 remiss without quoting at least one case. Back in 1985 the

() 15 16 EPA standards for byproduct constituents, which the NRC a documented, were litigated in the Tenth Circuit. In the 17 case of American mining Congress versus Thomas, found at 772 18 Fed 2d 640 and I quote from page 648.

19 United nuclear argues that the EPA's ground water 20 standards impermissible intrude on state control of ground 21 water, a contention that we summarily reject. Not a lot of 22 discussion, just summary rejection.

23 We are satisfied that the UMTRCA's directive 24 provides the basis for preemption. The Tenth Circuit was so 25 satisfied. I suggest that you be so satisfied. I think O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

37 1 Wyoming participate North Dakota that case as an amicus, and 2 Wyoming can be so satisfied, and we can get about an 3 efficient use and allocation of resources to get the job 4 done.

5 Thank you.

6 MR. HONONICH: Well, on the other side of the 7 coin, Gary Beach from the DEQ is up next. Just happened to 8 be fortuitous timLng, Gary. There was nothing planned on 9 this.

10 MR. BEACH: I should have signed up later. If I 11 wou]J known Mr. Shaver is going same thing I am going to 12 fecus on, I would have probably tried to move myself further 13 tiown the line.

14 My name is Gary beach, Administrator of the Water

() 15 16 Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality for the State of Wyoming.

17 In the way of background, I can tell you like Mr.

18 Shaver, and what I want to say in the beginning here, I'm 19 not going to be argumentative to Mr. Shaver's comments, but 20 I will probably share with you a different perspective on 21 many of the same points that he just raised.

l 22 I will also share with you I've been working for 23 the department for some over 20 years now, and I was here 24 when the late governor Herschler pursued the decision on l

l 25 concurrent jurisdiction with the NRC, and I remember then as ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034

l 38  !

1 a young man tha many trips to this place in silver springs,  !

i 2 Maryland, which seemed to be way out, outside the Beltway, I 3 think, and I can reflect that at the time we ended up with 4 the decision of concurrent jurisdiction, I think we felt 5 that was the better legal opinion. And I will attempt to 6 explain why I think that is the better legal opinion, 7 realizing that you could fall either way on this issue.

8 I will also say that I think that we've enjoyed a 9 good relationship, even as a non-agreement state, we have i

10 enjoyed a good relationship with the NRC over the past 11 years. I mean, there's been many cases where we held the 12 bonds for the NRC, and so I think there was a relationship, f

13 and as is noted in the White Paper, there has been a 1

14 maturity here, both of our agencies have grown. So it's 15 probably appropriate that we address efficient government.

16 I don't think any of us disagree with that. Because I think 17 we are approaching a time now when the industry wants 18 closure on same of their sites and we have to make some 19 tough decisions now. And I can see some of the merits and 20 concerns of the issues they raise in their White Paper.

21 So I think this is an appropriate discussion.

l 22 I will focus my remarks on concurrent l

23' jurisdiction. There may be other folks from the state that i

24 would address the other remarks.

25 As I said, I think that is the better legal ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

g Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i _ _ __ __-___ _ _ _

39 1 opinion. And I say it for these reasons: When that opinion r- 2 was issued, it was issued at the same time or in the same I

\ 1 3 time frame that there were many other environmental laws '

4 being passed by Congress, and you know as well as I that in 5 those laws, many of them pass, they identify the state as 6 the appropriate mechanism for protection of land and water 7 resources. And this state has developed a primacy program 8 under those federal laws. Not only do we have our own state 9 law that drives us towards not only public health and safety 10 protection but also protection of our land and water 11 resource is. And although we are a rural state and we 12 realize not many people live here today, we've never been of 13 the mind of sacrificing those resource is because there's a 14 paucity of population here today. We have great ground 15 water resources, many of which are in these same areas where 16 we have uranium deposits, and they are good quality waters.

17 And some day there may be the need for those waters.

18 Anybody that lives in Wyoming knows we do a lot of work to I

19 keep and use our water, because without that, there is no 20 existence in this state.

21 I think we have homes of economic growth here, 22 along with the rest of the country, and the water may be key 23 to that.

24 I think concurrent jurisdiction is the right 25 decision not only because of the expressed intents of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

( ') Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l

I

40 1 Congrcss by many othar foons of legislation, we find more 2 and more today duplicative regulation. Everywhere you look 3 you see it anymore. So it's not like this is the only place 4 we find duplicative regulation. It owes curse more and 5 more. And what you find is a more and more a participating 6 type of government. Now it even goes to local governments, 7 where' local governments are being pulled into decision 8 making about land use and resource protection.

9 And I realize that's troublesome to someone who is 10 trying to get through the maze to do business, because it 11 takes time, but I also find that when you get through the 12 maze, you have a lot more happier people with the decision 13 because they had a chance to participate. They may not get 14 everything they wanted, but they had a chance to 15 participate.

i O 16 And that's important versus the old concept of the king rules all, you must accept whatever ths king tells j 17 you.

i L 18 So for those reasons, I think, that concurrent 19 jurisdiction is the right legal opinion. I understand 20 Wyoming made a conscious decision in the late '70s and early 21 '80s to not pursue agreement state status, and believe me, 22 we he evaluated that option. But and I know there's a lot 23 of burden to accepting that role. It's much more than just 24 . resource protection, and we realize at that point that was l

25 too much of an investment for what we had to do to attain  !

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

41 1 that status.

2 So we have chosen to remain non-agreement, and we

)

3 have welcomed the opportunity to participate in some of the 4 decisions that have been played in these areas under.

5 So having said that, you know, what it brings us 6 down to, I do think we need to talk about duplicative 7 regulation, how do we make it better. Because I think we 8 have created, when we talk about site closure, we have 9 created a maze. It's like a figure eight, you can go round 10 and round and the industrial probably never get out of it.

11 And I think this is something that we in federal-and state 12 government need to resolve, and I think we are ready to sit 13 down and talk to you folks about how we accept your license 14 areas, the area that will be controlled by the U.S.

( 15 Government, and we can accept your approach on how you seek 16 closure for that area, as I've expressed to you in some 17 recent meetings, what we are concerned is what leaves that 18 property sGLIEFRNLTHS sGLIEFRNLTHS punctuation sGLIEFPNLTHS 19 and how request we assure our citizens that resource is 20 still out there for them in the future. So I think there 21 needs to be some discussions on how we resolve the 22 differences in approach, which has been brought up that, 23 yes, this state has trouble with risking away resources. We 24 believe our mandate is resource protection, and there's 25 nothing wrong with that. I mean, maybe the balancing of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 -

b34

. 42 1 two different approaches is what we need to come to the 2 better solution for the citizens of this state.

3 We also understand that we have many old 4 contaminated sites that were never designed with the current 5 technology, and we have some major ground water 6 contamination problems, not only on mill tailing sites but 7 other sites in the state that we have to deal with, and 8 there isn't a economic solution to clean them up. You can 1 9 throw a lot of money at thea and you'll never completely 10 clean them up. Somehow we have to start coming to terms i 11 with how are we going to deal with these contaminated sites, 12 and the mills tailings sites fall into that category.

13 So I would suggest in closing you stay with your 14 current policy, because I think it's the right policy, and

() 15 16 it's a good policy. I don't see the need for rule making in this area. But I do see the need for us to sit down and 17 revisit how we do business and how we create a mechanism 18 that, one, assures the licensee can get the closure, that 19 they are not bouncing off the two of us. And I think, 20 finally, I think what really drives this is the long term 21 liability. If we let the licensee walk away without 22 complete clean up, the old term is how clean is clean, okay, 23' and alws.ys in government then we are worried, well, if the 24 licepree walks away without a completely clean site, who is 25 liable in the long term. I know you are worried the state ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I

43 1 will say the federal government is liable, and more 2

O 3 concerned about the contaminants coming off the federal government's property, and it seems like we need to sit down 4 and seriously deal with liability. Maybe that's dealt with 5 through some kind of memorandum of understanding or 6 something between governments so we understand what we are l

7' both accepting for closure.

8 Those would be my suggestions. Certainly, I can 9 respond to questions, if you have any.

10 MR. HOLONICH: Thanks, Gary.

l 11 Our next speak is Stephanie Kessler from the 12 Wyoming Outdoor Council.

13 .

14 MS. KESSLER: Thank you for this opportunity to

() 15 16 speak. My name is Stephanie Kessler.

Outdoor Council.

I'm with the Wyoming We are a state conservation group 17 representing the public his interest. I would just be 18 curious to know from you, because you talked about wanting 19 stakeholder' input, how many actual citizens not associated 20 either with regulators or the industry or people 21 representing the public have actually testified before you 22 in this process?

23 MR. HOLONICH', I would say less than five.

24 MS. KESSLF.A: Less than five.

25- I first have some comments about this process l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

)

l 44 1 itcoif. It's flawed. The White Paper that accompanied your 2 notice of this meeting raises some highly controversial O 3 issues. It ohms a can of worms. Particularly for Wyoming, 4 a, and I will go into those later. And it is astounding to 5 me that you're holding this meeting and there is so little 6 other representatives of the public here.

7 I think that's because your notice was extremely 8 vague and difficult for the regular public to even know it i 9 was coming. People do not read the Federal Register on a l

l 10 daily basis.

11 I would also tend to disagree with your use of the l 12 word scoping, as if this somehow meets a NEPA definition of 13 scoping. I have never seen such a vague presentation of 14 kind of what you're looking at that says we just want to 15 reviewer our regulatory framework. That is so broad, that 16 from the general public, who are not professional people 17 like most of the industry here, you're not going to get 18 substantive input, and I think it's disingenuous of the 19 agency to claim you want public input and yet define it in 20 such a broad, vague way that you're not going to get the 21 input that deservedly you need from the unregulated public.

22 So I would hope -- I think it's great if you are 23 just doing these rounds of meetings to kind of first get a 24 feel of what's out there, but I would encourage you to have 25 something specific on paper, and to use some tried and trus ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

'O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

' Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

45

. 1 public notica machanigma to gat tha word out to the public f3 2 to get the kind of input that you need on this issue, such k_/ 3 as even taking out an ad in the state-wide paper a couple 4 weeks in advance of this meeting. There are certainly 5

people in this state and the other states that could help i

6 you put together a better public notice process.

7 I have never quite seen such a vague announcement 8 as a total regulatory framework over what you've said in 9 your meeting notices. It is very difficult to know what we 10 are discussing here.

11 I've been dealing with radioactive waste issues, 12 both low level and high level in this state, for almost the 13 last ten years. And this paper from the National Mining 14 Association opened up a Pandora's box for me and what I 15 think will be for the State of Wyoming. That's why I 16 started off talking about why this is such a critical issue 17 to get more information out and about and in greater detail.

18 Let me start with the most controversial and get 19 that over with, and then move on to some other points.

20 There is a proposal here in the White Paper to essentially 21 allow mill tailings sites to become disposal areas for l 22 non-11e . (2) materials, which they were originally designed 23 for. Wyoming has a very controversial past. In 1992 three 24 companies first proposed opening up norm radioactive waste 25 sites in this state. And it created a huge amount of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters ON 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

46 1

political turmoil that end2d up with our legislature passing 2

a very comprehensive law, which essentially puts up a lot of 3 high barriers to such a facility in our state. That 4 legislation was passed in 1992.

5 And it became a very heated state-wide debate at 6 the time.

7 I think a year later another company proposed 8 bringing in a lot of outside radioactive waste, including in 9 their mill tailing site, and, again, there was a large hue 10 and cry from the public about this. Wyoming generally does 11 not like to see its state turn into a radioactive waste 12 dumping ground for other states' waste.

13 So this is why that proposal, one of the proposals 14 in this White Paper to me opened up a Pandora's box of 15 issues, because the state has addressed this within itself

'~

16 and passed laws to protect itself from this type of 17 endeavor. I think the NRC needs to seriously sit down with 18 the state regulators and look at that history and why 1

19 Wyoming a felt so strongly bit and understand you're going 20 to get a significant amount of public opposition from this 21 state for that kind of proposal.

22 I also find it incredibly vague, again, and I was l 23 shocked to hear the mention of 11e. (1) waste as possibly a 24 constituent. So that's just to give you a little background 25 on that.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

I \ Court Reporters

\~ I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

47 1 My organization would oppose that proposal by the

-] 2 National Mining Association. We understand there is a (V 3 problem of waste disposal, but we are not ready to jump into 4 quick and easy-fix solutions by putting it in mill tailings 5 site, which you have heard repeatedly today are leaking, are 6 contaminating ground water. That's what we have heard about 7 today, although it has been couched in different terms, but 8 these very facilities that are not successfully containing 9 the radioactive waste, which they were designed for in the 10 first place, to now propose them to be open to other types 11 of radioactive waste to me is incredibly contradictory.

12 And in fact, it contradictory against the other 13 point I have heard today which is that everybody wants to 14 expedite closure of these sites. In fact, this talks about

,f'} 15 a coordinated and consistent approach to regulation is s.-

16 confusing to me, because it has those contradictions, saying 17 it wants to expedite closure of mill tailings sites and yet 18 open them up for full range of other radioactive products is 19 not logical and consistent at all.

20 Regarding the issue of federal preemption of state 21 standards, we've heard a lot today about duplicative 22 regulation. I would instead say that concurrent 23 jurisdiction does not always mean that it is duplicative l 24 regulation. We strongly support the State of Wyoming's l 25 position to regulate its water quality outside the boundary l

gg ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

() Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

, Washington, D.C. 20036 l

(202) 842-0034

48 1 of those fcdsral mill tailings sites, or the NRC licensed 2 areas. I do not believe when the State of Wyoming signed 3 off on being a non-agreement state, that it also signed off 4 on the federal document being able to degrade Wyoming's 5 water quality outside of the license area. And I think 6 that's what a lot of this issue is about.

7 We Lear from a lot of these industries that they 8 would like state regulation. Our state is unique, and we 9 hear fram these same industries that we can't use a federal 10 cookie-cutter approach to regulation because this country is 11 very diverse and different. The economy, the landscape, 12 everything is different, and so we can't use the 13 one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter approach to regulation that 14 applies in this case as well.

15 By your federal standards of the NRC, you don't

(}

16 rank Wyoming as very high risk, because we are very low 17 populated state. Okay. Our land is rural or appears empty 18 and by national standards we will always, by using national 19 risk standards, and up allowing pollution to come on to our l 20 land and degrade it because of those national standards. We 21 do'not measure very high, using your federal cookie cuter 22 approach,.

23 As a result of that, it's easy to see that the NRC 24 could through its decisions by overriding Wyoming 25 jurisdiction of water quality standards allow our state to g- ANN RILEY E ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u_1__ _ _ _ __ 1

49

. 1 bscomo a sacrifics zono in the cause of closing these mill 2 tailings sites. I believe the State is right in asserting 3 its authority over the lands and waters of the state outside 4 of the licensed area. We have interests that you can't 5 appreciate from your federal perspective, and Mr. Beach 6 spoke about some of those. Devaluation of the ranch 7 properties around these mill tailings sites that could occur 8 as a result of contamination of ground water. What about a 9 rancher in the future wants to put in a stock well? These 10 are things that do not register in your analysis enough, but 11 they do for Wyoming.

12 I spoke of a controversy where one uranium mine 13 wanted to bring in out of state radioactive waste and put it 14 in its facility. At that point lawyers representing 15 ranchers in the nearby area contacted us, because they were 16 quite concerned about this. There are members of the 17 public, landowners, who could be affected by such decisions 18 to override state water quality standards. So certainly 19 outside of the NRC area, we believe that Wyoming has the 20 right to assert its authority over this.

21 Other contradiction also I find within the j 22 National Mining Association document, they want NRC 23 preemption of state authority when it comes to such mill 24 tailings impoundments, but then they don't want the NRC to 25 be involved in the I ISL regulations. Again, this is not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l 0

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 50 1 concistent oither.

2 I'm not ready to say we should have one approach 3 or the other, but let's look at the specifics, and let's 4 look at where the regulatory structure is concurring, but 1 5 also compliments each other, not maybe necessary 6- duplicative. We don't want to have just simply duplicative 7 regulation for no reason, but in the case of the mill  !

8  !

tailings facilities, we really believe there are two 9 separate roles for the two different governing agencies, and 10 they are best suited to fulfill each of those roles. To  :

11 just make a sweeping statement that it is duplicative is not 12 an accurate portrayal of the situation, and does not really l 13 address the major issue, which is protection of human health 14 and the environment.

15 We've heard a lot about protection of human health 16 and environment. It is not evident to me that quick closure {

17 of these facilities and allowing them to leak an contaminate 18 aquifers off-site does equal the best protection of human 19 health and the environment, and we disagree severely with 20 comments made in this document that closure always is 21 equated with the best public health and safety policy.

l 22 As I pointed out, it is also contradictory with l

23 opening these facilities up for other types of waste.

24 I'm just looking at my notes here very quickly.

25 (Pause.)

l i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j g Court Reporters N~/ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036

{

(202) 842-0034 '

e-_____---_-_____________ ._ _ . ._ __ __ _ .-_

I 51

., 1 I gusso I would cnd by juct scying you need to 2 frame specifics, what it is you are looking at changing. It 3 is very difficult for the public to be engaged in a process 4 which is so broad and vague. The public does not have this 5 many people paid representing it in the State of Wyoming to 6 represent their views, and I think if you are serious about  !

l 7 making some major changes here in regulations, you need to i

8 consider some aggressive mechanisms to draw in public 9 comment and participation from the non-regulated community, 10 or else you're going to have -- end up with a public opinion 11 atmosphere here in Wyoming which may be over reactive to 12 what this paper represents that you have put out. And you 13 may have more than you bargained for because it's going to 14 come as a surprise, a shock, given our history, and people rs 15 are going to be upset with it, if it seems to just have been

(

16 dumped on them. That's my experience from working on these 17 issues in Wyoming, and I would be glad to help you out in 18 the future, to get some public notice and information out.

19 MR. HONONICH: Do you have a card?

20 MS. KESSLER: No , I don't have one on me, but I 21 can lay out my information.

22 MR. HOLONICH: Would you please do that?

23 MS. KESSLER: Yes.

24 MR. HOLONICH: Good. Thank you. Those are all 25 the folks that signed up to speak. But we have plenty of I i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. '

('

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

l

._______________________0

i 52

- 1 tim 3. Are th3ra oth2r folks who would liko to coma up and 2 make a presentation?

,O,- 3 Okay if that's the case, then we are done. I l 4 appreciate people coming here this morning and giving us the 5 information they have. We are going to continue these

[

6 meetings in Denver, tomorrow, and try to get more input on 7 that.

l 8 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned.)

j 9 l

10 11 12 13 1

14 15 16 i

17 18 19 20 21 l 22 23 t

\

24 i l

25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

( Court Reporters

.\

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036

! (202) 842-0034 i

1

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE L

I "'

.M This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

NAME OF PROCEEDING: PUBLIC MEETING DRAFT RULEMAKING FOR 10 CFR PART 41 CASE NUMBER:

l PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Casper, Wyoming i.

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm.ssion taken by me and thereafter reduced to

'( ) typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

e

l. 0, ,

I 2 b A ._

r

\ L' Rich-Mattson I

I Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

O